Friday, 14 August 2009

The Independent Not So 'Independent'

The Independent voices the views of an IRI supporter, an IRI slave, who betrays the fabric of human rights and freedom. Who is the slave that chooses the money of the IRI criminals, over the moral fibre of integrity and justice? Who sooner shakes the bloodied hand of the IRI than to embrace the hand of the many martyred Nedas in Iran? Daruis Guppy, of course.

"To suggest that two undeniably devout men, Ayatollah Khamenei and Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, should have engaged in such an un-Islamic conspiracy as cheating their own people (unnecessary, since the consensus of the opinion polls put Mr Ahmadi Nejad comfortably ahead) constitutes possibly the most serious allegation that one could level against them"

'Undeniably devout men'; that is a correct assertion - devoted to offending the laws that seek to protect human rights, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; The Convention on the Rights of the Child; and even their own domestic legislation (not to mention the constant violation of Shia Islamic jurisprudence).

Guppy speaks of 'hand-in-hand evidence', yet he fails to recognise the violations of the principles of evidential requirement, and the right to a fair trial perpetrated by the IRI government he holds so close to his bosom.

He further lectures on democracy, yet what does he and his IRI comrades know about the virtues of democracy? Their idea of democracy is that one may have any government candidate in Iran, so long as he is a Shia Muslim, who recognises the principles and tenets of the Islamic revolution (Article 67 of the IRI Constitution).

"For we look with horror at your anarchy and what you have become. Visit Iran and you will see a people polite, hospitable, cultured, noble and brave. Look at Britain's urban hell and you will see young girls and boys armed with knives, swearing, half naked, vomiting the previous night's attempt to stifle their pain and their emptiness. Turn on the radio and listen to laddettes boasting about what they did with their boyfriends in bed the day before, but tune in to Iran's airwaves and you will hear poetry and beautiful music"

And what occurs in Iran? Minors sentenced to death, breaching the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Allegedly, these children committed murder, and so are paying the ultimate price. If such allegations are in fact correct, then the assertion that the UK has 'young girls and boys armed with knives' is irrelevant and meaningless, for it appears to be worse in Iran. Pot calling the kettle black?

Guppy further criticises Western literature and pop culture, boasting about Hafez, yet he fails to reveal that the IRI government he so fervently supports has their own literature, such as Ayatollah Khomeini's 'Tahrirolvasyleh' 4 edn, Qom, page 12:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby, but he must not penetrate"

Bravo Guppy, well argued. How can one compete with such literature belonging to the IRI?

Guppy further drones, mixing conspiracy theories, politics and religion. All of which are neither here nor there when one directs their attention to the fact that Iran has the second worst human rights record in the world; first place was awarded to China, which has a far larger population in comparison.

One may argue that the Independent is merely illustrating the types of backwards and hypocritical thinking that exists today; however, it can also be argued that publishing Guppy's absurdities can only serve to damage the credibility and reputation of the Independent.

12 comments:

  1. True, but its all about money, money,money! Independent was paid millions of pounds (blood money of inecent iranian) just to publish untrue and rubish matterials to show some support for the monsters, blood sucker rejim in Iran, IRAN THE MOST BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY WITH THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE ON EARTH.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your comment. It is a shame that the beauty of Iran has been traded in for the evil that engulfs the minds of the ruling elites.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What the hell are you talking about. It must be nice to sit on your armchair and curse the very country you claim to love.

    Iranians brought in change in 1979, thank God the Shah is gone. Thank God he is dead. People like you are traitors to Iran. I am happy you don't live in Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How does my support for the protection and promotion of human rights in Iran render me a traitor?

    I love Iran; however, I do not love the current regime in Iran ;)

    Iranians brought in change back in 1979; however, as many of them have admitted, the revolution back-fired. The Shah is dead, and it is of no material relevance; for now there is a 'new' regime (Islamic Republic) and it is this regime that is grossly violating the rights of its own people.

    Please consult http://stopchildexecutions.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=58

    and then argue to me that the current regime is a good one.

    Why are you so persistent on defending a government that has proven to rape its own sons and daughters in prison, whilst they are held illegaly? Why do you side with a govt. that happily orders the shooting of unarmed protestors? Why do you favour an oppressed Iran, when you can strive for a free yet independent Iran?

    Whilst you are happy that I do not live in Iran, ask yourself why you don't live there either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mehrtash ,

    you are such an idiot. I live in Iran half the year, my WHOLE family lives in Iran. Everyone I hold dear lives in Iran. Tehran, Esfahan, Tabriz.

    You support human rights? really? great, so do I, but Iran as a whole has much less human rights violations than your UK allies. In fact, we are probably the most free muslim country in the middle east, next to turkey.


    You point me to a site that says a 17 year old girl was executed for taking part in a MURDER. Ummm...last I checked, MANY countries in the world have capital punishment of minors, including the US. But yet, i don't see you start a blog about human rights violations in the US. You are a hypocite.

    I hate the fact that you throw around accusations, but don't have a single shred of proof. And NO, a dissident site posting pictures of alleged victims and pictures of alleged perpetrators doesn't count.

    And by the way, the people that were shot on the streets, were causing unrest, they could not deal with the fact that their candidate lost. They decided to break the law, protest illegally, and were dealt with. Sorry, thats the law.

    The current Iranian regime, despite all its faults, has the best interest of IRAN in mind. It is not a client state, it is not a slave state such as Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and many others. You probably want iran to be a client state like all the countries I mentioned above.

    You are a typical Iranian dissident, you probably want the shah to come back and rule Iran like before. Sorry, as long as you live, rest assured, Iran will remain an Islamic Republic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Iran is a Muslim country? I very much doubt that, given the government actions offend Islamic law!

    Now to the crucial point in your flawed reasoning:

    "...the people that were shot on the streets, were causing unrest, they could not deal with the fact that their candidate lost. They decided to break the law, protest illegally, and were dealt with. Sorry, thats the law"

    An 'illegal' protest does not warrant the execution of such protestors. Furthermore, the victims were not taken to a public court of law and tried with both a prosecution and defence team, with hard evidence, as is required by Islamic law, National law, and international law. Again, this part was by-passed and the process was fast-tracked to the firing of bullets.

    You are a sad and failed excuse of 1) a human 2) an Iranian/Persian.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, according to international LAW, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is an offence to execute a person for a crime they committed before they were 18 years old. Law is law, right?

    Now, with regards to the law in Iran and the shooting of unarmed protestors, Articles 36 and 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran maintains that no one can be punished without the sentencing of a competent court; and that all persons are innocent until a competent court can establish guilt.

    So, there were no such courts in the streets of Iran when unarmed protestors were shot dead/injured. The very law in which you believe in is not even adhered to by the so called democratic government you so cherish, ignorant one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wait a minute, you mention the Convention on the Right of the Child as your source?

    A quick search reveals that every country in the world has signed it and accepts it, except for the United States! How weird is that. Your UK has passed and ratified it with reservations. Don't give us your international law BS. Iran is a sovereign country, and in issues of internal matters, it can do whatever it wants. The people of Iran that vote for their government, their parliament are the only ones who can alter the course of their government. Not outsiders like yourself educated in western law who want Iran to abide by the very laws that your own UK and USA have not agreed to accept.

    As far as the law in Iran goes, when the protestors come to the streets without permits for a legal protest, they suffer the consequence. Look, if your point is that Iran should have regime change because its government does not always follow certain laws, even the ones it has written itself at all times, then I think Iran is on a list of various countries that need regime change, including your UK and USA. I never said that Iran was perfect, no country is. The fact is that I live in Iran for half the year, all my family lives in iran and at least I take part in elections, I vote, and I try and better my country, you sit in your armchair, and give us idealistic speeches about laws that your OWN adopted country doent even fully accept.

    I never said Iranian law or application of the law was perfect, no country is, but at least, Iran is not a client state like the one you so desire it to be.


    Until and when you have a positive solution for iran, MY country, don't come forward with your holier than thou bs about how great western law is and about how evil Iran is. People like you are the exact reason why people IN Iran, hate dissidents.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am not the country that violates the law; I am one of many who believes in the protection of human rights. USA has a lot to answer for; for example, not ratifying the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, as well as the CRC... Just because I speak out against the heinous violations of human rights in Iran, it does not follow that I accept and support violations and omissions by other States.

    Iran has ratified the CRC as well as the ICCPR; I believe in laws that protect and promote human rights, be it national or international. As a result, I believe in honouring such laws. Iran's govt. accepted the jurisdiction of such laws - if one cannot honour their oaths and responsibilities, then they certainly are not worthy of power, authority or responsibility.

    Yes, other States offend these laws, and even omit from being party to them; however, please do not forget, regardless of your views, I am a Persian/Iranian; therefore, my primary concern is with Iran; my motherland.

    You argued: "As far as the law in Iran goes, when the protestors come to the streets without permits for a legal protest, they suffer the consequence."

    So, then, do you support the shooting of such unarmed civilians?! As illustrated above, the law and procedure was not followed when State gun-men attacked with their batons and guns.

    'Western law'? Be sure that the legislators and drafts-people in the U.N., as well as in Iran, were not all Western.

    I never once argued that Iran was evil; I argued, and still maintain, that the actions of the authorities/government of the IRI are evil when they violate the human rights of their own people over and over - there is a difference. I have not spoken of politics, nor endorsed any type of thought; I speak for human rights (hoghoogh e bashar); something that you would stand up for if you were the victim of its abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mehrtash,

    Your biased view is clearly coming through your posts.

    If your argument is that Iran's government actions are "evil" when they violate human rights, then I think every government in the history of man was at some point evil. That's quite a broad brush you're using there.

    If your only argument and moral ideal is to stand for human rights, then there are worse countries than Iran to write about. Just because you're Iranian doesn't mean you have to write about Iran. Why don't you write about the millions in Africa who are denied human rights, or what about the millions in South America, or hell, even in Europe.

    My point is, even though you claim to only care about human rights, your biased opinion about Iran seeps through your posts. Be fair, talk about human rights abuses around the world, not just a country you hate, who ironically you are from.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Was beginning to wonder what had happened to you, had been a while since you had a rant on here ;) Glad to find that you are still well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. sz,how much do you get from the murderer, blood sucker regim of Iran to make sucha rubbish comments? shame on you and your regim!

    ReplyDelete